Coggins v. Jones Doc.

4
Case 3:08-cv-00256-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

GENE COGGINS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. ) 3:08cv256-MHT
) (WO)
E. PAUL JONES, )
)
Defendant. )

OPINION

The court now has before it the motion to proceed in

forma pauperis filed by plaintiff Gene Coggins.

It is well-established that a two-step procedure

should be followed in processing a pro se complaint filed

in forma pauperis.

“First, the district court should determine

whether the plaintiff satisfies the economic
eligibility criterion under [28 U.S.C. §]
1915(a). Upon a finding of economic
justification, the court should allow the
complaint to be docketed without prepayment of
fees. Second, once leave has been granted, [28
U.S.C. §] 1915(d) allows the district court to
dismiss the complaint prior to service of
process if it determines the complaint to be
frivolous or malicious and spare the defendant

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 3:08-cv-00256-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 2 of 3

the inconvenience and expense of answering a

frivolous complaint.”

Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 1981) (per

curiam).* See also Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107,

1114 (11th Cir. 1985). The motion filed by Coggins

satisfies the economic eligibility criterion of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Accordingly, the case may be filed without

prepayment of fees.

Coggins should not, however, be allowed to proceed

with this litigation. He has named as a defendant

District Attorney E. Paul Jones, who is immune from suit

for actions taken in his prosecutorial capacity,

including his decision whether to initiate a prosecution.

See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427-28 (1976);

Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1281 (11th Cir. 1999).

Coggins’s complaint is therefore meritless and should be

dismissed without prejudice as frivolous, prior to

* In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th

Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions
of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the
close of business on September 30, 1981.

2
 Case 3:08-cv-00256-MHT-SRW Document 4 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 3 of 3

service on defendant E. Paul Jones, pursuant to

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). See Nietzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992).

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 10th day of April, 2008.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE